Description

Unlike many national constitutions, which contain explicit positive rights to such things as education, a living wage, and a healthful environment, the U.S. Bill of Rights appears to contain only a long list of prohibitions on government. American constitutional rights, we are often told, protect people only from an overbearing government, but give no explicit guarantees of governmental help. Looking for Rights in All the Wrong Places argues that we have fundamentally misunderstood the American rights tradition. The United States actually has a long history of enshrining positive rights in its constitutional law, but these rights have been overlooked simply because they are not in the federal Constitution.

Emily Zackin shows how they instead have been included in America's state constitutions, in large part because state governments, not the federal government, have long been primarily responsible for crafting American social policy. Although state constitutions, seemingly mired in trivial detail, can look like pale imitations of their federal counterpart, they have been sites of serious debate, reflect national concerns, and enshrine choices about fundamental values. Zackin looks in depth at the history of education, labor, and environmental reform, explaining why America's activists targeted state constitutions in their struggles for government protection from the hazards of life under capitalism.

Shedding much-needed light on the variety of reasons that activists pursued the creation of new state-level rights, Looking for Rights in All the Wrong Places challenges us to rethink our most basic assumptions about the American constitutional tradition.

About the author

Emily Zackin is assistant professor of political science at Hunter College, City University of New York.

Google Play reviews now use Google+ so it's easier to see opinions from people you care about. New reviews will be publicly linked to your Google+ profile. Your name on previous reviews now appears as "A Google User".

Google Play reviews now use Google+ so it's easier to see opinions from people you care about. New reviews will be publicly linked to your Google+ profile. Your name on previous reviews now appears as "A Google User".

Similar

He who can change the Constitution controls the Constitution. So who does control the Constitution? The answer has always been: “the people.” The people control the Constitution via the Article V amending process outlined in the Constitution itself. Changes can only be made through Article V and its formal procedures. Article V has always provided a means of perfecting the Constitution in an explicit, democratically authentic, prudent, and deliberative manner. In addition to changing the Constitution Article V also allowed the people to perfect and preserve their Constitution at the same time.

In recent years Article V has come under attack by influential legal scholars who criticize it for being too difficult, undemocratic, and too formal. Such scholars advocate for ignoring Article V in favor of elite adaptation of the Constitution or popular amendment through national referendums. In making their case, critics also assume that Article V is an unimportant and expendable part of the Constitutional structure. One notable scholar called the Constitution “imbecilic” because of Article V.

This book shows that, to the contrary, Article V is a unique and powerful extension of the American tradition of written constitutionalism. It was a logical extension of American constitutional development and it was a powerful tool used by the Federalists to argue for ratification of the new Constitution. Since then it has served as a means of “perfecting” the US Constitution for over 200 years via a wide range of amendments. Contrary to contemporary critics, the historical evidence shows Article V to be a vital element in the Constitutional architecture, not an expendable or ancillary piece. This book defends Article V against critics by showing that it is neither too difficult, undemocratic, nor too formal. Furthermore, a positive case is made that Article V remains the most clear and powerful way to register the sovereign desires of the American public with regard to alterations of their fundamental law. In the end, Article V is an essential bulwark to maintaining a written Constitution that secures the rights of the people against both elites and themselves.

In Enforcing Equality, Rebecca E. Zietlow assesses Congress's historical role in interpreting the Constitution and protecting the individual rights of citizens, provocatively challenging conventional wisdom that courts, not legislatures, are best suited for this role.

Specifically focusing on what she calls “rights of belonging”—a set of positive entitlements that are necessary to ensure inclusion, participation, and equal membership in diverse communities—Zietlow examines three historical eras: Reconstruction, the New Deal era, and Civil Rights era of the 1960s. She reveals that in these key periods when rights of belonging were contested and defined, Congress has played the role of protector of rights at least as often as the Supreme Court has adopted this role. Enforcing Equality also engages in a sophisticated theoretical analysis of Congress as a protector of rights, comparing the institutional strengths and weaknesses of Congress and the courts as protectors of the rights of belonging.

With the recent new appointments to the Supreme Court and Congressional elections in November 2006, this timely book argues that individual rights are best enforced by the political process because they express the values of our national community, and as such, litigation is no substitute for collective political action.

The discrepancy between the fourteenth amendment’s true meaning as originally understood, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of its meaning over time, has been dramatic and unfortunate. The amendment was intended to be a constitutional rule for the promotion and protection of people’s rights, administered by the states as front-line regulators of life, liberty, and property, to be overseen by Congress and supported by federal legislation as necessary. In this book, William B. Glidden makes the case that instead, the amendment has operated as a judge-dominated, negative rights-against-government regime, supervised by the Supreme Court. Whenever Congress has enacted legislation to protect life, liberty, or property rights of people in the states, the laws were often overturned, narrowly construed, or forced to rely on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, under the Supreme Court’s constraining interpretations. Glidden proposes that Congress must recover for itself or be restored to its proper role as the designated federal enforcement agency for the fourteenth amendment.

Newtown. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Tucson. Aurora. Gun violence on a massive scale has become a plague in our society, yet politicians seem more afraid of having a serious conversation about guns than they are of the next horrific shooting. Any attempt to change the status quo, whether to strengthen gun regulations or weaken them, is sure to degenerate into a hysteria that changes nothing. Our attitudes toward guns are utterly polarized, leaving basic questions unasked: How can we reconcile the individual right to own and use firearms with the right to be safe from gun violence? Is keeping guns out of the hands of as many law-abiding Americans as possible really the best way to keep them out of the hands of criminals? And do 30,000 of us really have to die by gunfire every year as the price of a freedom protected by the Constitution?

In Living with Guns, Craig R. Whitney, former foreign correspondent and editor at the New York Times, seeks out answers. He re-examines why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and how it came to be misunderstood. He looks to colonial times, surveying the degree to which guns were a part of everyday life. Finally, blending history and reportage, Whitney explores how twentieth-century turmoil and culture war led to today’s climate of activism, partisanship, and stalemate, in a nation that contains an estimated 300 million guns––and probably at least 60 million gun owners.

In the end, Whitney proposes a new way forward through our gun rights stalemate, showing how we can live with guns––and why, with so many of them around, we have no other choice.

In these original essays, America's leading historians and legal scholars reassess the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment and its contemporary relevance to issues of liberty, justice, and equality. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in the United States, reasserting the radical, egalitarian dimensions of the Constitution. It laid the foundation for future civil rights and social justice legislation, yet subsequent reinterpretation and misappropriation has curbed more substantive change. With constitutional jurisprudence undergoing a revival, The Promises of Liberty provides a full historical portrait of the Thirteenth Amendment and its untapped potential for ensuring common liberties.

The collection begins with an introduction by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Brion Davis (Yale), who discusses the failure of the Thirteenth Amendment to achieve its framers' objectives. Davis is followed by James M. McPherson (Princeton), another Pulitzer recipient, who recounts the influence of abolitionists on the ratification process. Subsequent essays address Lincoln's commitment to ending slavery and the Thirteenth Amendment's surprisingly small role during and after Reconstruction. The anthology's third Pulitzer Prize winner, David M. Oshinsky (University of Texas, New York University), explains how peonage undermined the prohibition against compulsory service. Other essays relate the amendment to contemporary issues in organized labor, reproductive rights, and citizenship.

This landmark work of Constitutional and legal history is the leading account of the ways in which federal judges, attorneys, and other law officers defined a new era of civil and political rights in the South and implemented the revolutionary 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments during Reconstruction. Should be required reading . . . for all historians, jurists, lawyers, political scientists, and government officials who in one way or another are responsible for understanding and interpreting our civil rights past.-Harold M. Hyman, Journal of Southern HistoryImportant, richly researched. . . . the fullest account now available.-American Journal of Legal History

While globalization and the European construction increasingly undermine the model of the nation-state in the Mediterranean world, conversions reveal the capacity of religion to disrupt, and unsettle previous understandings of political and social relations. Converts' claims and practice are often met with the hostility of the state and the public while converts can often be perceived either as traitors or as unconscious and weak tools of foreign manipulation.

Based on first-hand ethnographical research from several countries throughout the Mediterranean region, this book is the first of its kind in studying and analyzing contemporary conversions and their impact on recasting ideas of nationalism and citizenship. In doing so, this interdisciplinary study confronts historical, anthropological, political science and sociological approaches which offers an insight into the national, legal and political challenges of legislating for religious minorities that arise from conversions. Moreover, the specific examination of contemporary religious conversion contributes more widely to debates about the delinking of religion and culture, globalization, and secularism.

Understanding the impact of constitutional rights in the real world depends on understanding the law of constitutional remedies for their violation. Integrating the history, doctrine, and policy of constitutional remedy, Wells and Eaton explain how people go about trying to obtain redress for violations of their constitutional rights. Diverse issues arise when persons seek to bring a lawsuit against governments, officials, or private individuals for violation of their constitutional rights. Among them are whether the injury ought to be accorded constitutional status at all, or instead should be treated as a routine wrong, no different in principle from a traffic accident. If the case warrants constitutional status, the next issue is whether or not suit may be brought against the officer who committed the wrong or his government employer, and so on. On each of these and other issues the authors guide the reader through the complex body of doctrine, the lively case law debates, and the scholarly literature over the appropriate mix of policies and the means by which to achieve them.

How were religious minorities treated in colonial times? What role did Catholics play in framing the religious liberty clauses of the First Amendment? How does the Supreme Court apply the sometimes contradictory commands of the free exercise and nonestablishment clauses? All Imaginable Liberty answers these questions in its tracing of the development of religious liberty from colonial times to the present. Articles by historians, political scientists, and lawyers explore the evolution of religious freedom and examine the role of the Supreme Court in extending and defining religious freedom. Francis Graham Lee introduces each section, addressing each article's contribution to the understanding of religious liberty in the contemporary United States.

You can read books purchased on Google Play using your computer's web browser.

eReaders and other devices

To read on e-ink devices like the Sony eReader or Barnes & Noble Nook, you'll need to download a file and transfer it to your device. Please follow the detailed Help center instructions to transfer the files to supported eReaders.